The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NWF Kids Pro Wrestling: The Untold Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to fail notability— see WP:FILMNOT. Most references turn out to be either dead links or have failed to verify. Remaining ones are not independent of the subject or are vanity refs. Bronze Telly awards are probably not reliable evidence of notability. Previous deletion discussion was inconclusive, but given current haziness of notability, deletion now seems appropriate. KDS4444^Talk 16:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry KDS4444, but a little WP:AFTER showed the "issues" of "dead links" and "verification" easy to correct, even though they changed in four years. WP:NTEMP. Thanks Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per interesting discussion at earlier AFD that resulted in no consensus. Notability is weak due to the film's target audience, but I will note though that for its genre it has more awards than just "some", and for a specialized documentary about youth wrestling that fact is surprising. Even weak notability is none-the-less, still a notability. As small-budget independent documentaries never have the distribution and press of the big budget studio blockbusters, we look instead to what the film is, and what organization felt it was worth awarding, and why. Awards are simply one of the criteria I am looking at. And while the Tellys do not have quite the same industry coverage as the Academy Awards certainly, they do have some decent and sourcable history and coverage of their own.[1] I am okay with the Acolade Competition [2] for its own coverage,[3] and the Aegis Video & Film Production Awards [4] for its history.[5] The last nominator wrote "it seems as if dozens of films are given an award each year, in categories so specific that it seems there cannot be much competition", and he could just as easily been describing the Oscars or Golden Globes, for no matter which one you look at... Oscars, Golden Globes, Aegis, Accolades, Tellys, etc... the competition now-a-days is pretty stiff. All film awards, from such as the Oscars (voted on by members of the not independent Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences themselves) to Golden Globes (voted on by the independent Hollywood Foreign Press Association), can all in some sense be seen as vanity and back-slapping mutual admiration (chuckle), we judge their notability through the coverage each has, as there has never been any other standard established to define what is a major award or how it might be itself notable.[6] We may find DVD reviews or evidence that it screened 5 years after initial release, but abetted by the awards, the reviews from Dove Foundation,[7] School Library Journal,[8] and the Julian Radbourne areview on X-Headlines (link found though wayback machine) push it just over the edge for me for this independent documentary film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have copied and pasted most of that text from the last deletion discussion. I do not want to copy and paste the responses it got because we are trying to have a new discussion, not replay the old one. Can you give a brief new summary of your Keep vote reasoning? Thanks. With regard to the awards, however: the Aegis award itself does not appear to be a notable award, and the page you found listing winners (thanks for finding it) looks like has nearly 200 recipients in 2006 alone (also, from the Aegis web site: "To win an Aegis Award is an outstanding achievement -- worthy of getting the attention of clients and employers."— to me, this translates to, "Pay us some money and we will make you look like you won something"... That is not winning an award, that is just purchasing attention); the New York festival awards have been heavily criticized for their own lax entry requirements and $300 entry fee (i.e., it is a profit-generator for its producers, not a genuinely competitive award); The Accolade award article has no sources in it other than a link to the official website and looks like it may also have no genuine notability of its own. The non-competitive nature of the Tellys was discussed in the last AfD discussion. I would be happy to see one source/ award from a verifiably notable organization at the national or international level that was clearly competitive in nature. Instead, what I am seeing are awards from non-notable organizations, or awards that are not competitive, which makes a notability claim appear rather thin to me, and there does not appear to be coverage of the film elsewhere other than routine reviews (again, these are discussed in the last AfD). KDS4444^Talk 13:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion about awards can just as easily be applied to the money machines of Oscars and Cannes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.... rather than have another back-and-forth bandying like that last AFD, I copied and modified my still-valid arguments. However, back and forth bantering seems fated. I was interested that rather than correct through regular editing, you chose to report the addressable dead links and lack of verifiability as part of his deletion rationale... though certainly not to negatively color this discussion with invalid reationals, so is allowable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some follow-up: the Aegis awards apparently were taking in around $90,000 a year in application fees, and the winners of these awards, selected by a never-named panel of industry specialists, receives... a certificate. And if they want to pay more money, a trophy. And the recognition, of course. (Aegis has since closed down.) I could find nothing about the video industry's emphasis on the value of these awards, which further increases my suspicion that they are not considered important. The Accolade awards run along the same lines: pay us a fee and we will give you an award. The Accolades aren't even competitive awards: they are assigned based on the merits of each submission. Winning one isn't exactly evidence of notability. KDS4444^Talk 16:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winning is only an indicator that coverage may exist. Who assigns an "award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" is not a deletion criteria... it a attribute to encourage source searching. Diligence shows it has coverage, so WP:NF is met. Is the notability as overwhelming and extreme as a big-budget major-studio blockbuster? Nope. Is it notable enough for inclusion herein? Yes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable in any way with nothing really reliable third part coverage.  MPJ -US  21:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect MPJ-DK, it has coverage by Dove Foundation,[9] School Library Journal,[10] and the Julian Radbourne review on X-Headlines, and ABC Newspapers. Coverage in The New York Times? No. But reliable enough for a small budget independent documentary film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no major awards, while there are some reliable sources proving the films existence, the coverage in reliable sources is not significant. See Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability for good rules of thumb here. --Bejnar (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect Bejnar, "major" or not, the awards led to it having just enough coverage in reliable enough source3s.[11][12][13][14]. New York Times? Variety? No. But reliable enough for a independent small-budget film. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a popularity only contest. I'll grant this is not Red Army (film), but small indy documentary films aren't the same as those with big money. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Joanna (2013 film) or The Reaper (2013 film) either; the issue isn't small and low budget indy documentaries, its coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it had but only one source anywhere, I would even suggest it needed more myself... but it has multiple and, even for a crappy documentary, THAT has it meet WP:NF . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, doesn't. Read WP:NF#Other evidence of notability again. --Bejnar (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bejnar, because of past instances where editors misinterpreted it I've studied WP:NF#Other evidence of notability in great detail:

1. WP:NF tells us us "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow,
2. and then WP:NF#General principles expands "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list".
3. WP:OEN clarifies that "Other evidence of notability" are not mandates, but are "are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist".
4. So, and no matter who gave them, verifiably winning an "award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" was an indicator that sources "might" exist.

And in then searching and finding sources that dealt with the topic directly and in detail, I determined we have a meeting of WP:NF through WP:GNG... even for a rather crappy film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources provides show coverage from secondary sources subject appears to pass GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.